DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 12-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 recites “said at least one local rigid stiffener tooling comprises a resin infusion tooling which has the conduit or conduits for injecting a resin between this tooling and the flexible envelope.”
Based on the disclosure, see [0016], it appears the “at least one rigid skin tooling comprises said at least one resin infusion tooling which comprises the conduit or conduits for injecting a resin between this tooling and the flexible envelope.”
Accordingly, the said limitation is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a positioning tooling” in claim 10 and 11;
“ a sealing device” in claim 6; and
“a device for creating a vacuum in an internal volume” in claim 7.
The following interpretations are made:
based on the disclosure and Figures 8 and 9, “a positioning tooling” will be interpreted as a tool and its equivalents thereof.
based on [0070], “ a sealing device” will be interpreted as a seal and its equivalents thereof; and
based on [0069], “a device for creating a vacuum in an internal volume” will be interpreted as a vacuum system and its equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “generally omega-shaped stiffener preform cross-section comprises two lateral flanks which are each connected, by a first of their two opposite ends, to a common portion forming an apex of the omega and, by each of their second
opposite ends, to a foot of the omega.”
Claims 3-5 recite “the omega”. It is unclear if “omega” is in reference to the preform or another element. For clarity, “the omega” should read the omega-shaped preform or the preform.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the resin infusion tooling is disposed opposite the second surface of the skin preform and the flexible envelope is disposed opposite said at least one rigid stiffener tooling or the resin infusion tooling is disposed opposite the second surface of the skin preform and the flexible envelope is disposed opposite the at least one rigid stiffener tooling.” The difference in the alternative is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Douglas (PG-PUB 2020/0001547).
Regarding claim 1, Douglas teaches an assembly structure for manufacturing a composite part comprising a stiffener joined to a skin from skin and stiffener preforms, the assembly structure comprising:
a set of preforms that comprises:
a skin preform having first and second opposing surfaces (Figure 14, item 46 and [0056]),
a stiffener preform of generally omega-shaped cross-section having first and second opposing surfaces, the first surface of the stiffener preform being disposed opposite the first surface of the skin preform, the stiffener preform extending along the first surface of the skin preform along a longitudinal axis and transversely to this longitudinal axis (Figure 14, item 25 and [0040], [0043]),
a rigid skin tooling disposed opposite the entire second surface of the skin
preform (Figure 14, item 71 and [0051]),
at least one local rigid stiffener tooling extending longitudinally and transversely so as to cover at least partially the second surface of the stiffener preform, said at least one local rigid stiffener tooling extending transversely around the stiffener preform cross-section with a transverse dimension smaller than the transverse dimension of the first surface of the skin preform (Figure 4 and 14, item 25 and [0040]),
at least one flexible envelope covering at least a portion of said at least
one local rigid stiffener tooling and the first surface of the skin preform (Figure 15 and [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 1, wherein the generally omega-shaped stiffener preform cross-section comprises two
lateral flanks which are each connected, by a first of their two opposite ends, to a
common portion forming an apex of the preform and, by each of their second
opposite ends, to a foot of the preform (Figure 4 and 15 and [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 2, wherein said at least one local rigid stiffener tooling extends transversely around the
stiffener preform cross-section covering the lateral flanks of the preform and at least a
portion of one or both feet of the preform (Figure 4, 12, and 14).
Regarding claim 4, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 2, wherein said at least one local rigid stiffener tooling extends transversely around the
stiffener preform cross-section covering the lateral flanks and at least part of one or both
feet of the omega (Figure 4 and 15).
Douglas does not teach the rigid stiffener tooling extending beyond terminal end of at least one foot towards the first surface of the skin preform to be disposed directly opposite thereto.
Alternatively, the limitation appears to require an omega preform with a certain feet length. Examiner notes the preform, including the omega preform, is a material worked upon. “Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (see MPEP § 2115).
The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. The apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Therefore, while the rigid stiffener tooling of Douglas does not extend beyond the terminal end of the omega preform, the stiffener tooling is capable of being used omega preforms of varying features, including shorter feet. During practice of the apparatus of Douglas, it appears selection of an omega preform with shorter feet would result in the rigid stiffener tooling extending beyond terminal end of at least one foot towards the first surface of the skin preform to be disposed directly opposite thereto.
Regarding claim 5, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 3,
wherein said at least one local rigid stiffener tooling has a portion located opposite each
of the connection areas between each of the flanks and the adjacent foot of the omega
of the stiffener preform, each tooling portion having a predetermined geometric radius of
curvature (Figure 4, 12, and 14).
Regarding claim 19, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 2.
Douglas does not teach said at least one rigid stiffener tooling extends transversely around the preform cross-section covering the lateral flanks, wherein a terminal end of one or both feet are uncovered by the at least one rigid stiffener tooling.
Alternatively, the limitation appears to require an omega preform with a certain feet length. Examiner notes the preform, including the omega preform, is a material worked upon. “Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (see MPEP § 2115).
The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. The apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Therefore, while the rigid stiffener tooling of Douglas does not extend beyond the terminal end of the omega preform, the stiffener tooling is capable of being used omega preforms of varying features, including extended feet. During practice of the apparatus of Douglas, it appears selection of an omega preform with extended feet would result in a terminal end of one or both feet are uncovered by the at least one local rigid stiffener tooling.
Regarding claim 20, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 2, wherein said rigid stiffener tooling is a single local rigid stiffener extending transversely around the stiffener preform cross-section covering the lateral flanks and the common apex.
Douglas does not teach a terminal end of one or both feet are uncovered by the at least one local rigid stiffener tooling.
Examiner notes the preform, including the omega preform, is a material worked upon. “Inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (see MPEP § 2115).
The manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. The apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)).
Therefore, while the rigid stiffener tooling of Douglas does not extend beyond the terminal end of the omega preform, the stiffener tooling is capable of being used omega preforms of varying features, including extended feet. During practice of the apparatus of Douglas, it appears selection of an omega preform with extended feet would result in a terminal end of one or both feet are uncovered by the at least one local rigid stiffener tooling.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas (PG-PUB 2020/0001547), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Wilson (GB2316036).
Regarding claim 6, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 1, wherein the preform is vacuum bagged and impregnated through an infusion process [0052].
Douglas does not explicitly teach a seal between the flexible envelope and said at least one rigid skin tooling.
Wilson teaches a system for resin infusion (Page 45-46) comprising a rigid tool and an elastomeric bag (Figure 9, page 6), further comprising a seal (Figure 3, item 17). Douglas teaches a sealing project formed in the vacuum bag (Figure 3) or a separate sealing projection formed by molding a solid elastomeric bead into the inner surface of the semi-stiff area 15b, the bead being identical in shape and volume to the corresponding sealing recess 17 in the tool face, such that the volume of the bead will expand on heat up of the apparatus thus reinforcing the sealing connection (Page 32-33 and 46). Wilson also teaches a clamp that applies pressure at the end of the vacuum bag to seal the outer peripheral (Page 33 and 46).
While Douglas teaches vacuum bagging the preform before resin infusion and would appear to require a sealing mechanism to enclose the volume, Douglas does not explicitly teach the sealing mechanism, prompting one to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Douglas with a seal and clamp as taught by Wilson, a known suitable mechanism to couple and seal a vacuum bag against a rigid tool for the purpose of enclosing a volume for resin infusion as taught by Wilson.
Regarding claim 7-9, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 1, wherein the preform is vacuum bagged and impregnated [0052].
Douglas does not explicitly a vacuum system for creating a vacuum in an internal volume delimited jointly by the flexible envelope and said at least one rigid tooling with respect to an outside of the assembly and potential one or more conduits for injecting a resin.
Douglas does not teach said at least one rigid skin tooling comprises a resin infusion tooling which has the conduit or conduits for injecting a resin between the rigid skin tooling and the flexible envelope.
Douglas does not teach wherein the resin infusion tooling is disposed opposite the second surface of the skin preform and the flexible envelope is disposed opposite said at least one rigid stiffener tooling.
Wilson teaches a system for resin infusion of fibrous preforms (Figure 1A-1E and 3), comprising a rigid tool and an elastomeric bag (Figure 9, Page 6 and 45), a seal and clamp (Figure 3, item 17 and 19), resin infusion system disposed through the rigid tool (Figure 9 and Page 45 and 46), and a vacuum system (Figure 3, item 325 and Page 46). Wilson teaches at least the rigid comprises a resin infusion tooling which has the conduit or conduits for injecting a resin between the rigid skin tooling and the flexible envelope (Figure 9).
While it appears Douglas suggests using a vacuum, as the preform is vacuum bagged, Douglas does not explicitly teach a vacuum system, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art for the mechanism to infuse a vacuum bagged preform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Douglas with a vacuum system and resin infusion tooling disposed through the rigid tool as taught by Wilson, a known suitable mechanism for infusing preform(s) with a rigid tool and flexible membrane as taught by Wilson, to yield the predictable result of infusing and curing the preform.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas (PG-PUB 2020/0001547), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Feeney (PG-PUB 2016/0107400).
Regarding claim 10 and 11, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 1.
Douglas does not teach a positioning tooling which is disposed against the flexible envelop on a side opposite the skin tooling,
wherein the positioning tooling comprises at least one cavity whose shape is suitable for receiving said at least one rigid stiffener tooling and the stiffener preform as well as at least partially the flexible envelope.
Feeney teaches an assembly for performing resin infusion of a preform using a vacuum bag and rigid tool (Figure 3), further comprising a positioning tool (Figure 4,item 38). Feeney teaches a resin injection port, bleed port, and vacuum port formed through the lower mold (Figure 3 and [0043]). Feeney teaches the positioning tool is rigid and positioned so as to define a volume 40 between the vacuum bag 20 and the positioning tool 38.such that the vacuum bag 20 is permitted to lift off the surface 18 of the preform 14 in a controlled and pre-determined amount (Figure 3-6 and [0043]-[0048]), thereby providing a pressure chamber [0045]. Feeney teaches a super-atmospheric pressure may be applied in ways by the positioning tool 38 other than by the control of a pressure medium in the volume 40 between the positioning tool 38 and the vacuum bag 20 [0047].
While it appears Douglas suggests using a vacuum and performing resin infusion, Douglas does not explicitly teach the mechanisms utilized, prompting one of ordinary skill in the art to look elsewhere in the art for the mechanism to infuse a vacuum bagged preform. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Douglas with a vacuum system, resin infusion tooling, and positioning tooling of Feeney, a known suitable mechanism for infusing preforms with a rigid tool and flexible membrane, to yield the predictable result of infusing and curing the preform.
Alternatively, claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas (PG-PUB 2020/0001547), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Wang (PG-PUB 2021/0001519).
Regarding claim 4, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 2.
Douglas does not teach said at least one local rigid stiffener tooling extends transversely around the stiffener preform cross-section covering the lateral flanks and at least part of one or both of the preform and extending beyond a terminal end of at least one foot towards the first surface of the skin preform to be disposed directly opposite thereto.
Wang teaches an assembly for manufacturing hat (i.e., omega) stiffeners (Figure 6 and 7 and [0064]-[0066]). Wang teaches a rigid form that performs the function of a conventional caul plate (Figure 11 and 15, item 214 and [0069]-[0070]). Wang teaches pressure applied to the outer surface 260 of uncured composite workpiece 202 acts cooperatively with rigid form 204, 214 to generate compressive force upon workpiece 202 [0069]. Wang teaches the caul plate extends beyond a terminal end of the feet of the omega preform (Figure 11 and 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Douglas with a stiffener tooling extended beyond the feet of an omega preform, a known suitable configuration for applying pressure to an omega-shaped preform with the use of a caul plate as taught by Wang.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas (PG-PUB 2020/0001547), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Saini (PG-PUB 2020/0254702).
Regarding claim 18, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 2.
Douglas does not teach said at least one local rigid stiffener tooling extends transversely around the stiffener preform cross-section covering the lateral flanks, wherein the common apex is uncovered by said at least one rigid stiffener tooling.
Saini teaches a caul plate for application onto an uncured composite material (Abstract and Figure 5). Saini teaches the caul plate controls wrinkling the composite [0025]-[0026]. Saini teaches each caul plate has an L-shaped configuration and is positioned on opposite sides of an uncured composite material of blade stringer such that the apex of the stringer is uncovered (Figure 5 and [0026]-[0028]). Saini teaches other shapes of caul plates can be used for accommodating other shapes of stringers or other composite parts being fabricated [0026].
Both Douglas and Saini are drawn to the same field of endeavor pertaining to manufacturing stringers or stiffeners using caul plates. Based on the teachings of Saini, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the shape of caul plates can be modified according to the desired shape of the composite. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized applying pressure to the lateral flanks and foot of stringers or stiffeners and leaving the apex exposed is a suitable configuration to reduce wrinkling in composites. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the caul plate of Douglas into two plates covering the lateral flanks of the preform while leaving the apex exposed, a known suitable configuration for stringers as taught by Saini.
Alternatively, Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Douglas (PG-PUB 2020/0001547), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Heath (PG-PUB 2020/0130291).
Regarding claim 19, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 2.
Douglas does not teach said at least one rigid stiffener tooling extends transversely around the preform cross-section covering the lateral flanks, wherein a terminal end of one or both feet are uncovered by the at least one rigid stiffener tooling.
Heath teaches a co-cured composite assembly comprising a thermal expansion insert (Figure 2 item 106). Heath teaches the insert applies pressure to an uncured omega-shaped preform, where the lateral flanks and apex are covered but both feet are uncovered (Figure 2-4 and [0035], [0038]-[0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective fling date of the invention to modify the assembly of Douglas, in particularly the shape of caul plate, with a shape that leaves the feet of the preform exposed, a known caul plate configuration that provides suitable pressure to omega-shaped preforms.
Regarding claim 20, Douglas teaches the assembly as applied to claim 2.
Douglas does not teach said at least one rigid stiffener tooling extends transversely around the preform cross-section covering the lateral flanks, wherein a terminal end of one or both feet are uncovered by the at least one rigid stiffener tooling.
Heath teaches a co-cured composite assembly comprising a thermal expansion insert (Figure 2 item 106). Heath teaches the insert applies pressure to an uncured omega-shaped preform, where the lateral flanks and apex are covered but both feet are uncovered (Figure 2-4 and [0035], [0038]-[0040].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective fling date of the invention to modify the assembly of Douglas, in particularly the shape of caul plate, with a shape that leaves the feet of the preform exposed, a known caul plate configuration that provides suitable pressure to omega-shaped preforms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/HANA C PAGE/Examiner, Art Unit 1745